GeForce 9600 GSO vs Radeon R7 370
Aggregate performance score
We've compared Radeon R7 370 and GeForce 9600 GSO, covering specs and all relevant benchmarks.
R7 370 outperforms 9600 GSO by a whopping 1292% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
GPU architecture, market segment, value for money and other general parameters compared.
| Place in the ranking | 468 | 1208 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.78 | 0.09 |
| Power efficiency | 7.48 | 0.70 |
| Architecture | GCN 1.0 (2012−2020) | Tesla (2006−2010) |
| GPU code name | Trinidad | G92 |
| Market segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Design | reference | no data |
| Release date | 18 June 2015 (10 years ago) | 28 April 2008 (17 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $149 | $49.99 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
The higher the ratio, the better. We use the manufacturer's recommended prices.
R7 370 has 6322% better value for money than 9600 GSO.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
General parameters such as number of shaders, GPU core base clock and boost clock speeds, manufacturing process, texturing and calculation speed. Note that power consumption of some graphics cards can well exceed their nominal TDP, especially when overclocked.
| Pipelines / CUDA cores | 1024 | 96 |
| Core clock speed | no data | 550 MHz |
| Boost clock speed | 975 MHz | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 754 million |
| Manufacturing process technology | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 105 Watt |
| Maximum GPU temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Texture fill rate | 62.40 | 26.40 |
| Floating-point processing power | 1.997 TFLOPS | 0.264 TFLOPS |
| ROPs | 32 | 12 |
| TMUs | 64 | 48 |
| L1 Cache | 256 KB | no data |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB | 48 KB |
Form factor & compatibility
Information on compatibility with other computer components. Useful when choosing a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. For desktop graphics cards it's interface and bus (motherboard compatibility), additional power connectors (power supply compatibility).
| Bus support | PCIe 3.0 | PCI-E 2.0 |
| Interface | PCIe 3.0 x16 | PCIe 2.0 x16 |
| Length | 152 mm | 229 mm |
| Height | no data | 4.376" (11.1 cm) |
| Width | 2-slot | 2-slot |
| Supplementary power connectors | 1 x 6-pin | 1x 6-pin |
| SLI options | - | 2-way |
VRAM capacity and type
Parameters of VRAM installed: its type, size, bus, clock and resulting bandwidth. Integrated GPUs have no dedicated video RAM and use a shared part of system RAM.
| Memory type | GDDR5 | GDDR3 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 384 MB |
| Memory bus width | 256 Bit | 192 Bit |
| Memory clock speed | 975 MHz | 800 MHz |
| Memory bandwidth | 179.2 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |
| Shared memory | - | - |
Connectivity and outputs
This section shows the types and number of video connectors on each GPU. The data applies specifically to desktop reference models (for example, NVIDIA’s Founders Edition). OEM partners often modify both the number and types of ports. On notebook GPUs, video‐output options are determined by the laptop’s design rather than the graphics chip itself.
| Display Connectors | 2x DVI, 1x HDMI, 1x DisplayPort | Dual Link DVIHDTV |
| Multi monitor support | no data | + |
| Eyefinity | + | - |
| Number of Eyefinity displays | 6 | no data |
| HDMI | + | + |
| Maximum VGA resolution | no data | 2048x1536 |
| DisplayPort support | + | - |
| Audio input for HDMI | no data | S/PDIF |
Supported technologies
Supported technological solutions. This information will prove useful if you need some particular technology for your purposes.
| AppAcceleration | + | - |
| CrossFire | + | - |
| FreeSync | + | - |
| TrueAudio | + | - |
| VCE | + | - |
| DDMA audio | + | no data |
API and SDK support
List of supported 3D and general-purpose computing APIs, including their specific versions.
| DirectX | DirectX® 12 | 11.1 (10_0) |
| Shader Model | 5.1 | 4.0 |
| OpenGL | 4.6 | 2.1 |
| OpenCL | 2.0 | 1.1 |
| Vulkan | + | N/A |
| Mantle | + | - |
| CUDA | - | + |
Synthetic benchmarks
Non-gaming benchmark results comparison. The combined score is measured on a 0-100 point scale.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark score.
Passmark
This is the most ubiquitous GPU benchmark. It gives the graphics card a thorough evaluation under various types of load, providing four separate benchmarks for Direct3D versions 9, 10, 11 and 12 (the last being done in 4K resolution if possible), and few more tests engaging DirectCompute capabilities.
Gaming performance
Let's see how good the compared graphics cards are for gaming. Particular gaming benchmark results are measured in FPS.
Average FPS across all PC games
Here are the average frames per second in a large set of popular games across different resolutions:
| Full HD | 46
+1433%
| 3−4
−1433%
|
| 1440p | 57
+1325%
| 4−5
−1325%
|
| 4K | 20
+1900%
| 1−2
−1900%
|
Cost per frame, $
| 1080p | 3.24
+414%
| 16.66
−414%
|
| 1440p | 2.61
+378%
| 12.50
−378%
|
| 4K | 7.45
+571%
| 49.99
−571%
|
- R7 370 has 414% lower cost per frame in 1080p
- R7 370 has 378% lower cost per frame in 1440p
- R7 370 has 571% lower cost per frame in 4K
FPS performance in popular games
Full HD
Low
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
Full HD
Medium
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 40−45
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Fortnite | 106
+1414%
|
7−8
−1414%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 38
+1800%
|
2−3
−1800%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+1329%
|
7−8
−1329%
|
Full HD
High
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 55−60
+1375%
|
4−5
−1375%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 150−160
+1490%
|
10−11
−1490%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 42
+1300%
|
3−4
−1300%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Fortnite | 41
+1950%
|
2−3
−1950%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 44
+1367%
|
3−4
−1367%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Metro Exodus | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 30
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 35
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Valorant | 100−105
+1329%
|
7−8
−1329%
|
Full HD
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 45−50
+1500%
|
3−4
−1500%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Dota 2 | 75−80
+1420%
|
5−6
−1420%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 32
+1500%
|
2−3
−1500%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 35−40
+1650%
|
2−3
−1650%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 45−50
+1467%
|
3−4
−1467%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 35−40
+1850%
|
2−3
−1850%
|
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 22
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Valorant | 20
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
Full HD
Epic
| Fortnite | 30
+1400%
|
2−3
−1400%
|
1440p
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 20−22
+1900%
|
1−2
−1900%
|
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 81
+1520%
|
5−6
−1520%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 16−18
+1500%
|
1−2
−1500%
|
| Metro Exodus | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 60−65
+1500%
|
4−5
−1500%
|
| Valorant | 110−120
+1375%
|
8−9
−1375%
|
1440p
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 27−30
+1300%
|
2−3
−1300%
|
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 9−10 | 0−1 |
| Escape from Tarkov | 21−24
+2000%
|
1−2
−2000%
|
| Far Cry 5 | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
| Forza Horizon 4 | 24−27
+2500%
|
1−2
−2500%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 14−16
+1400%
|
1−2
−1400%
|
1440p
Epic
| Fortnite | 21−24
+2200%
|
1−2
−2200%
|
4K
High
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Counter-Strike: Global Offensive | 45
+1400%
|
3−4
−1400%
|
| Grand Theft Auto V | 21−24
+2100%
|
1−2
−2100%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Metro Exodus | 7−8 | 0−1 |
| The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt | 12−14 | 0−1 |
| Valorant | 55−60
+1350%
|
4−5
−1350%
|
4K
Ultra
| Battlefield 5 | 14−16
+1300%
|
1−2
−1300%
|
| Counter-Strike 2 | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| Cyberpunk 2077 | 3−4 | 0−1 |
| Dota 2 | 40−45
+1900%
|
2−3
−1900%
|
| Escape from Tarkov | 10−11 | 0−1 |
| Far Cry 5 | 10−12 | 0−1 |
| Forza Horizon 4 | 18−20
+1700%
|
1−2
−1700%
|
| Hogwarts Legacy | 6−7 | 0−1 |
| PLAYERUNKNOWN'S BATTLEGROUNDS | 10−11 | 0−1 |
4K
Epic
| Fortnite | 10−11 | 0−1 |
This is how R7 370 and 9600 GSO compete in popular games:
- R7 370 is 1433% faster in 1080p
- R7 370 is 1325% faster in 1440p
- R7 370 is 1900% faster in 4K
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 10.72 | 0.77 |
| Recency | 18 June 2015 | 28 April 2008 |
| Maximum RAM amount | 4 GB | 384 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 110 Watt | 105 Watt |
R7 370 has a 1292.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, a 966.7% higher maximum VRAM amount, and a 132.1% more advanced lithography process.
9600 GSO, on the other hand, has 4.8% lower power consumption.
The Radeon R7 370 is our recommended choice as it beats the GeForce 9600 GSO in performance tests.
Other comparisons
We selected several comparisons of graphics cards with performance close to those reviewed, providing you with more options to consider.
